|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Marie Finlay
Detective Sergeant
Username: Marie
Post Number: 66
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 09, 2003 - 6:31 pm: |       |
Oh, one last point- I've read that excessive facial mutilations usually indicate that the victim was known to their killer.
The attack on Mary seemed to me to be frenzied (yet controlled in the sense that the killer took steps to conceal his identity, and make an efficient escape). The attack could very easily be fueled by burning anger. The kind of anger that would cause someone who knew her, to wish to cut her face of. |
Diana
Detective Sergeant
Username: Diana
Post Number: 70
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 09, 2003 - 7:31 pm: | |
Wednesday's Update
1. physically strong
2. knowledge of local geography
3. anatomical knowledge
4. hated women
5. schizoid (disorganized, motive was personal) or sociopath (organized, motive was lust)or mixed or religious-obsessive or autistic.
6. risk taker
7. age in 20s or 30s.
8. ethnic -- white, Anglo-Saxon or Irish
9. lower socioeconomic group
10. present in Whitechapel on relevant dates
11. hated reproductive function
12. sick, incarcerated, dead or moved away subsequent to the murders.
13. mutilated animals
14. self injury
15. control freak
16. con man or popped out of gates and grabbed them, or chose the extremely desperate
17. Neurologically adept with spatial relationships
18. was employed
19. dysfunctional family -- alcoholism? abuse?
absent father?
20. physical abnormality?
21. precrime stressor
22. sought victims of opportunity
23. some experience in killing (slaughterhouse? military?)
24. Paid them with liquor to get them drunk?
25. Personally knew Eddowes and/or Kelly? (facial mutilations)
Richard -- right now I'm just collecting ideas. I think the list has to get a lot longer and then we can sort thru and use math to weight the scoring so our "probablys" outweigh our "possiblys". Some of these relate to each other in ways I had not anticipated. For instance #18 relates to #5. If he was schizoid to the point of total wierdness he probably would not have been able to hold down a job. |
AP Wolf
Detective Sergeant
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 97
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 10, 2003 - 2:20 am: | |
Leanne
I'm sorry but I just don't know enough about your Barnett to make any sort of valid contribution to the discussion. Perhaps I should know more but there seems to be so many of you keen on Barnett as Jack that I feel the quest best left to those concerned.
The fact that he held down work, moved in normal avenues of society, was interviewed at length by the police and was not held - which I think he would have been if he had showed any form of mental illness - seems to make him perhaps an unlikely choice in such crimes. In much the same way as if the police had managed to get their hands on Richard Chase after his first murder it would have then been obvious that this was their man. |
AP Wolf
Detective Sergeant
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 98
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 10, 2003 - 2:27 am: | |
Marie
you are right but I am also right.
I think we must end this discussion with ourselves in agreed permanent disagreement.
Even you I think must admit that the cool calculating killer does not mutilate his victims... at all.
This is the work of someone out of control, not exercising control, as I have pointed out before:
control = live victim.
No mutilation as the killer does not want to disfigure his fantasy.
I don't think I go along with the idea of face mutilation indicating a close relationship between victim and killer, although I have briefly flirted with this idea myself. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Detective Sergeant
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 92
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 10, 2003 - 3:56 am: | |
Hi,
I totally agree with Marie, facial mutalation would be the killers way of expressing the ugly side of his victims nature, therefore taking away any beauty that they may have poccessed in life.
In my mind that would suggest that in the murder of Eddowes and Kelly the murderer may well have known these victims personally.
Which leads to the question . Did Eddowes and Kelly know each other?. I believe if the reports that she lived in the shed for a time in millers court are true, the answer is Yes..
Regards Richard. |
Marie Finlay
Detective Sergeant
Username: Marie
Post Number: 67
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 10, 2003 - 6:14 am: | |
Hi AP Wolf,
Sorry, but I can't agree that sociopaths don't mutilate their victims. Jeffrey Dahmer, and a whole host of others I could cite, prove otherwise.
My point is simply that we must be very careful, when we try to pigeon-hole a killer like Jack, especially when using terms such as 'raving lunatic', or 'sociopath'. The fact is, we simply don't know.
To say that we must only be looking for a complete lunatic, is to seriously limit the investigation. The fact is, plenty of post-mortem mutilations have been inflicted upon their victims by people who are not dribbling madmen.
But yes, we must agreee to disagree, because we're in danger of talking this particular aspect to death.
Cheers!
Marie. |
AP Wolf
Detective Sergeant
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 99
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 10, 2003 - 1:14 pm: | |
Marie (and Richard)
Yes, let us end it there... almost.
In no way do I want to 'seriously limit the investigation' and I apologise if my gentle ravings have appeared to do that. Simply putting my often contentious point of view.
I feel when a killer mutilates his victim and then actually takes parts of that victim home to store then he is no longer a 'sociopath' - if he ever was - but what I would vaguely describe as a lunatic who is operating in a peculiar vacuum that is only know to himself.
In other words an acute paranoid schizophrenic, and these very ill people do inhabit such strange planets even when they do not kill. Such people are able to move - almost without a transition phase - from harmless and bumbling fools to extermely vicious killers, but even then a few minutes later they may be completely unaware of their actions or the consequences of them. Long catatonic phases can be interspersed with violent bouts of activity, these days usually controlled by soporific drugs, and levels of violence can depend on mood at all times.
That is why I have always seen the first crime of Jack as inherently accidental in its nature, and then from this accident came about some strange desire to play the game as it were, and then definitely yes most of the later victims would have been known to the killer, not intimately, just a known face in the street.
Although the FBI and others have always vaunted the theory that a killer who has a close personal relationship with his victim is then likely to facially mutilate that victim, I have as yet in over twenty years of research not found one single case that demonstrates this point conclusively.
Now as we all know the majority of day-to-day murders committed by one person on another person when they are in a close personal relationship is between husband and wife. Again I know of no case that shows facial mutilation in these crimes, although I have found several cases where the husband has disfigured his wife's face severely in an attempt to halt identification of that victim, even fingers and teeth have been removed to help avoid identification. I fear the FBI and others have used these cases to come up with their strange premise. But this is in no way 'mutilation' of the nature we are talking about here.
Unless that was exactly what someone was attempting to do to both Eddowes and Kelly.
I'll leave you with that thought. |
Tommy Simpson
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, April 10, 2003 - 12:38 pm: | |
Regaring the facial mutilations of Eddowes and Kelly. Why should the first three victims escape facial mutilation, the obvious answer is that it never entered the murderers mind to mutilate their faces. So what did enter his mind to the extent that he decided to mutilate the faces of Eddowes and Kelly.
Were the media responsible for these acts? They had hyped up the populace in their newspapers with the chilling details of the previous murders, the deeds of the Whitechapel murderer was on everyones lips, the Ripper himself in the course of his every day life would have been subjected to accounts of his own deeds.
And what was the underlying message to the people, that the police were powerless to apprehend the killer, that the murderer comes and goes as he pleases. Did this cat and mouse game appeal to the murderer, did he think to himself what can i do to further infuriate the police, why not mutilate the face of the next victim. Eddowes face was not only mutilated, but two innverted v's were carved out of her face immediately below her eyes, why go to this trouble? Was the murderer saying look at me, look at what i am doing, in effect taunting the police? It dosn't take a genius then to conclude that JTR was a callous and spitefull killer. what moulded the mind of such a man, was it his upbringing? Or was he just simply born evil? God only knows, |
Marie Finlay
Detective Sergeant
Username: Marie
Post Number: 70
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 10, 2003 - 3:11 pm: | |
Hi AP Wolf,
You posted: "In no way do I want to 'seriously limit the investigation' and I apologise if my gentle ravings have appeared to do that"
Please, no need for apology! I've an enormous amount of respect for your opinion, and your work. And I enjoy debating with you.
It's just that I simply cannot accept your theory that ONLY paranoid schizophrenics mutilate their victims. This just simply isn't true- consider some of the most notorious psychopaths such as Dahmer, and Lucas.
I don't think we can make any type of conclusive psychological analysis of Jack, this far in the future. We're taking the same information, and making very different conclusions- so yes, it's time to get off the roundabout, now.
I will bite on this, though: "Unless that was exactly what someone was attempting to do to both Eddowes and Kelly."
What are your thoughts on this? I'm not exactly sure what you mean....
|
Diana
Detective Sergeant
Username: Diana
Post Number: 71
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 10, 2003 - 8:30 pm: | |
Thursday's Update
1. physically strong
2. knowledge of local geography
3. anatomical knowledge
4. hated women
5. schizoid (disorganized, motive was personal) or sociopath (organized, motive was lust)or mixed or religious-obsessive or autistic.
6. risk taker
7. age in 20s or 30s.
8. ethnic -- white, Anglo-Saxon or Irish
9. lower socioeconomic group
10. present in Whitechapel on relevant dates
11. hated reproductive function
12. sick, incarcerated, dead or moved away subsequent to the murders.
13. mutilated animals
14. self injury
15. control freak
16. con man or popped out of gates and grabbed them, or chose the extremely desperate
17. Neurologically adept with spatial relationships
18. was employed
19. dysfunctional family -- alcoholism? abuse?
absent father?
20. physical abnormality?
21. precrime stressor
22. sought victims of opportunity
23. some experience in killing (slaughterhouse? military?)
24. Paid them with liquor to get them drunk?
25. Personally knew Eddowes and/or Kelly? (facial mutilations)
26. Robbed victims ( Kelly's money from Blotchy Face not found, Chapman and Eddowes possessions spread out as though sorting through for coins.)
|
Diana
Detective Sergeant
Username: Diana
Post Number: 72
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 10, 2003 - 8:32 pm: | |
I just thought of #27 and I'll have to add it tomorrow.
27. nocturnal |
Caroline Anne Morris
Sergeant
Username: Caz
Post Number: 15
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 11, 2003 - 10:41 am: | |
Hi Diana,
Who says blotchy face definitely paid Kelly in cash?
As for Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes, they may or may not have had a penny piece between them when they encountered Jack, but any spreading out/re-arranging/taking of possessions and/or body parts could have been predominantly, if not entirely, ritualistic in nature. We simply don't know if financial gain for its own sake entered Jack's thinking as he struck. But IMHO the Kelly murder scene points strongly to a Jack in overdrive, sensing he had been given, or having seized, an opportunity which may never again present itself - to spread her out and re-arrange her bits and pieces in a way that he just couldn't have done with the other bodies.
Hi Marie,
I see what you mean about Jack engaging socially with his victims, which could, I suppose, range from simply nodding agreement to the price and accompanying them with little or no conversation to their chosen spot, to actively seeking them out, then charming them with wit and possibly alternatives to cash that were equally acceptable - like presents, drink or food - before turning nasty.
Have a great weekend all.
Love,
Caz
|
Marie Finlay
Detective Sergeant
Username: Marie
Post Number: 73
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 11, 2003 - 3:30 pm: | |
Hi Caz,
Yes, that's exactly what I meant.
*Raises glass in toast*
Have a fun weekend, everyone. |
Diana
Detective Sergeant
Username: Diana
Post Number: 73
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 12, 2003 - 9:31 am: | |
Saturday's Update
1. physically strong
2. knowledge of local geography
3. anatomical knowledge
4. hated women
5. schizoid (disorganized, motive was personal) or sociopath (organized, motive was lust)or mixed or religious-obsessive or autistic.
6. risk taker
7. age in 20s or 30s.
8. ethnic -- white, Anglo-Saxon or Irish
9. lower socioeconomic group
10. present in Whitechapel on relevant dates
11. hated reproductive function
12. sick, incarcerated, dead or moved away subsequent to the murders.
13. mutilated animals
14. self injury
15. control freak
16. con man or popped out of gates and grabbed them, or chose the extremely desperate
17. Neurologically adept with spatial relationships
18. was employed
19. dysfunctional family -- alcoholism? abuse?
absent father?
20. physical abnormality?
21. precrime stressor
22. sought victims of opportunity
23. some experience in killing (slaughterhouse? military?)
24. Paid them with liquor to get them drunk?
25. Personally knew Eddowes and/or Kelly? (facial mutilations)
26. Robbed victims -- no victim found with money
27. nocturnal at least on weekends and holidays |
Caroline Anne Morris
Sergeant
Username: Caz
Post Number: 16
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 13, 2003 - 6:55 am: | |
Sorry Diana,
I'm just not sure we can assume any of the victims had money on them by the time they encountered their killer (or that Jack handed over cash initially and retrieved it before leaving the scene). Even if they had been servicing cash-paying customers in the hours preceding their deaths, they all seem to have been quite capable of spending what they got as soon as they got it - hence the need to keep moving on to the next likely provider, the last one providing something they didn't bargain for.
Love,
Caz |
Diana
Detective Sergeant
Username: Diana
Post Number: 74
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 14, 2003 - 7:25 pm: | |
Well, then that will be a "possibly", and mathematically weighted accordingly. |
Monty
Sergeant
Username: Monty
Post Number: 27
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 15, 2003 - 12:19 pm: | |
Brian,
Re your post which seems to be dated an age ago..sorry,
I guess you/me/we would judge the mutilations as risks..... but in Jacks world I think it was a act which he just HAD to do.
Monty
 |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 195
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 16, 2003 - 2:55 am: | |
G'day Diana,
It has just came into my discussion that the Ripper's past was probably filled with minor crimes, not necessarily murder.
LEANNE |
Diana
Detective Sergeant
Username: Diana
Post Number: 79
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 16, 2003 - 8:37 pm: | |
Good point, Leanne -- I added it on.
1. physically strong
2. knowledge of local geography
3. anatomical knowledge
4. hated women
5. schizoid (disorganized, motive was personal) or sociopath (organized, motive was lust)or mixed or religious-obsessive or autistic.
6. risk taker
7. age in 20s or 30s.
8. ethnic -- white, Anglo-Saxon or Irish
9. lower socioeconomic group
10. present in Whitechapel on relevant dates
11. hated reproductive function
12. sick, incarcerated, dead or moved away subsequent to the murders.
13. mutilated animals
14. self injury
15. control freak
16. con man or popped out of gates and grabbed them, or chose the extremely desperate
17. Neurologically adept with spatial relationships
18. was employed
19. dysfunctional family -- alcoholism? abuse?
absent father?
20. physical abnormality?
21. precrime stressor
22. sought victims of opportunity
23. some experience in killing (slaughterhouse? military?)
24. Paid them with liquor to get them drunk?
25. Personally knew Eddowes and/or Kelly? (facial mutilations)
26. Robbed victims -- no victim found with money
27. nocturnal at least on weekends and holidays
28. History of lesser crimes. |
Thomas C. Wescott
Police Constable
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 3
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 16, 2003 - 9:50 pm: | |
Who's to say he hated women? Bundy didn't hate women. |
Diana
Detective Sergeant
Username: Diana
Post Number: 81
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 17, 2003 - 8:51 pm: | |
Of course we can't be absolutely certain, but the mutilations (ie. obliterating the face) certainly seem to point in that direction. The rate of growth of the list is slowing. Soon we will be out of fresh ideas. Then it will be time to start organizing a scoring system. |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 211
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 18, 2003 - 5:15 am: | |
G'day Diana,
Maybe it would be safer to say that he hated one type of woman. 'Hated prostitutes'
LEANNE |
Diana
Detective Sergeant
Username: Diana
Post Number: 84
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 18, 2003 - 8:43 am: | |
I don't think we can know how far his hatred extended. I am going to wait a little longer and if there are no new ideas then I will rank the 28 ideas in order of probability. Then we will debate the ranking. . . and debate . . . and debate till we start to get bogged down. Then I will divide the list into sections. The most probable criteria will have a scale of zero to ten. The least will be from 4 to 6 and there will be gradations in between. If we know that a suspect does not fit a criteria at all and the criteria in question has a high likelihood of being accurate he gets a zero on that one. If it is a highly questionable criteria he gets a 4. A score of five means we don't have data. We just don't know enough about this guy to know if he fits this one.
Suspect A has an average score of 2.84. He is probably not JTR. He scored low on most of the high probability criteria (enough to pull his average well below 5). Suspect B has an average score of 5.21. We just don't know. We don't have enough data to say either way about this person. He scored in the middle a lot of the time. If he scored high on one or two high probability criteria, he must have scored low on a number of others and there were many instances where he got a 4,5, or 6 because we had no info on him either way or the info was very tentative. Suspect C has a score of 8.73. He is a very likely candidate. Of course we can never be sure that all of our criteria are correct. We are dealing in probabilities and so it would be very unlikely to ever have anybody with a 10. If the info on a suspect was that overwhelming we wouldn't need a rating scale! |
Diana
Detective Sergeant
Username: Diana
Post Number: 85
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 18, 2003 - 9:05 am: | |
Spryder, I have software designed to create forms. After this thing is put together, I could create a ballot type thing. Then anybody could work through the checklist. We would have discussions where we compare our scores for a specific suspect and talk about why we gave him the score we did on specific test items. The disadvantages are that 1) my software came with a limited # of licenses. I can't keep changing the ballot as we get new ideas. 2) I'm not sure a form like this could be posted on the message boards so this whole thing has plusses and minuses to it. You should know that I have tried uploading stuff to the message boards without success before. |
Diana
Detective Sergeant
Username: Diana
Post Number: 86
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 18, 2003 - 9:54 am: | |
I have looked at my software and I think with several hours work I could set it up so that it does the math for you. But I don't want to do it if you don't think there would be someplace on the Casebook to post it. |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
